September 21, 2010

The president concluded from the start that “I have two years with the public on [Afghanistan]” and pressed advisers for ways to avoid a big escalation, the book says. “I want an exit strategy,” he implored at one meeting. Privately, he told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to push his alternative strategy opposing a big troop buildup in meetings, and while Mr. Obama ultimately rejected it, he set a withdrawal timetable because, “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”...

[T]he book describes a professorial president who assigned “homework” to advisers but bristled at what he saw as military commanders’ attempts to force him into a decision. Even after he agreed to send another 30,000 troops last winter, the Pentagon asked for another 4,500 “enablers” to support them.

The president lost his poise... “I’m done doing this!” he erupted....

And President Hamid Karzai suffers from manic depression.

IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian writes:

"I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party."

He doesn't mind losing the war or the country, however.

ADDED: My response to that quote — "I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party" — is: The President is saying — can it be true? — that there isn't even a small fragment of the party that would support fighting the war with a serious commitment to victory. How damning!

167 comments:

This is a smear campaign. It will not work. No one will buy the book. Obama is a terrific president - he is a scholar, a visionary, nobel laureate, and so on. Woodward is of course jealous. But, that is okay. Once we get through the Nov. 2012 victory, all will be forgiven. This is the goal as of this week for the campaign. Focus on Nov. 2012 victory and help get the Obama/Biden the 2nd term. Nothing else matters.

Mr. Obama's struggle with the decision comes through in a conversation with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who asked if his deadline to begin withdrawal in July 2011 was firm. :I have to say that," Mr. Obama replied. "I can’t let this be a war without end, and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party."

It's golden because, of course, he won't lose the Democratic Party. He would only lose the petulant peaceniks who hate all war and the independent coffee haus hipster douchebag crowd common all over Hyde Park.

Brilliant Obama hasn't yet grasped the simple, incontestable fact that he can do the right thing by remaining in Afghanistan and at the same time never lose a single peacenik or douchebag because they have nowhere else to go.

That dumb ass Bush was brilliant about operating this way. So was Clinton.

Hey, I don't want a leader who can't lead. At least Bush got the military to do the surge in Iraq. Years late (which is his damn fault), but he did it. He blew off the Iraq Study Group (and Joe Biden's partition plan), too.

Obama hasn't done anything like that yet. He seems scared of the military.

That's a bad sign.

For the record, I'm very, very skeptical of the Afghan war. I don't see any way for Afghanistan to become a functional country. It never has been. The only period of stability that it enjoyed (in the mid 20th century) can't be recreated in a modernizing age of increased expectations.

Iraq had been a country before, and can be one again. Afghanistan...

I'm sure Obama wants to bring the troops home, for principled reasons and for electoral votes in 2012. I have a feeling that he might not be up to the fight with the military that that policy will require. The last President to have that fight was Richard Nixon. He at least had overwhelming public support.

Obama might just waffle and let the war continue, with no clear idea of what his objective is. That's bad.

Wow. The New York Times (!!!) account is devastating to Obama. It reflects amateur hour among advisers and, worst of all, a president who is making life and death decisions about war and our country's security based on politics, e.g., fear of losing the democratic party.

Maybe I should not be shocked. I have watched these guys embarass themselves on a host of other issues. But it seems much more jarring when you are talking about war and national security.

Woodward is amazing in terms of the access he secures. I don't really trust him, with all the unnamed sources, but to a large extent, his work seems to have withstood the test of time. For him to paint a negative picture of Obama and his advisors is astonishing to me, because I assume Woodward if a lefty.

But overall, what could we expect. Blowhard Joe Biden (!!!) as VP and community organizer Obama as president. Two more years cannot pass fast enough in terms of our national security.

Why do people talk to Woodward? I think the obvious answer is to try to make themselves look good. In the process, they of course make others look bad. It is genuis by Woodward.

I think a president should order his people not to talk to Woodward. Bush II of course followed a different stategy on the first book, and it worked beautifully. Not so much the next time.

Poor Brilliant Obama. Do you think he's sitting, right now, wondering where the magic evaporated to? Or do you think he has spun a thick, silky cocoon around himself the way the left tends to do when faced with reality?

Everyone knew from "day one" that Obama was, at best, half-assed on Afghanistan, that he did not, did not, did not in any way, manner or form want to do any kind of "surge," and wanted, instead, to adopt the "run away" strategy. And everyone knew that when he and the Dems and the MSM insisted that he was taking the thing seriously that they were all full of @#$*.

This whole idea of "exit strategy" grossly misunderstands the nature of the conflict that we have been thrust into. There is no more exit strategy for this war than there is an exit strategy on fighting crime or fighting poverty.

This is definitely a war that we can lose -- and lose badly, i.e. having NYC or DC nuked -- but it must be understood that "winning" only means keeping the Islamists at bay, pushing them into their caves, and going after them forever. ETERNAL VIGILANCE is the price of liberty in this struggle.

And yeah... so Obama was trying to show the military who was "boss", just like some of us accused him of doing. And then (if we do recall) he criticized the military for not being able to *instantly* have his directives in place. Why did he think they were trying to get him make a decision already? Did he think it was a power play between the civilian leadership and the military? How long did he not even bother to meet with his commander?

Unfortunately for the future of western civilization that we value so much, Ahmadinejhad has absolutely no trouble making decisions. His first decision is to build a nuclear fission bomb and take over the rest of the Islamic world by killing all of those pesky Jews who are patiently awaiting their death if there is no decision out of Dithering Barack, any decision...please just make a decision.

This is a smear campaign. It will not work. No one will buy the book. Obama is a terrific president - he is a scholar, a visionary, nobel laureate, and so on. Woodward is of course jealous. But, that is okay. Once we get through the Nov. 2012 victory, all will be forgiven. This is the goal as of this week for the campaign. Focus on Nov. 2012 victory and help get the Obama/Biden the 2nd term. Nothing else matters.

Can anyone imagine Lincoln, either Roosevelt or Reagan having anything like these conversations?

Lincoln and FDR demanded unconditional surrender of America's enemies. Reagan famously summed up his intent towards the Soviet Empire back in 1977 as "We win, they lose."

Did this President even once tell his commanders that he was determined to win this war, demand they tell him how they intended to accomplish that objective as expeditiously as possible and ask what they needed from him?

This report is like a black farce where you expect a SNL actor playing Dubya to pop out with a frat boy grin asking: "How is that hopey changey thing working out for you? Miss me yet?" before hollering: "From NYC, its SATURDAY NIGHT!"

Thank heaven there does not appear to be an existential threat on the horizon before this incompetent is fired in 2012.

AJ -- I could not agree more. ESPN programming that is not actual sporting events is beyond terrible. Just unwatchable. I suggest NFL Network if you have it. It's everything ESPN could be if it didn't suck.

So, since ESPN sucks and there is no game on, yeah, Obama probably is watching ESPN. This leads more toward Mickey Kaus's cocoon theory.

For whatever reason; this piece of armchair psychology makes MoDo look like Freud.

And, they say Althouse is suffering from sluggish cognitive tempo disorder? [See, I can make silly, unsupported statements too.]

As to the substance: I am not surprised that BHO doesn't want to have an open ended commitment in Afghanistan. But, I was also not surprised that he wanted to raise income taxes on the folks making over 200/250M, and I wasn't surprised that he believes in Keynesian stimulus (which had also been practiced by the economy juicing deficit spending of Reagan and W), and I wasn't surprised that he wanted to pass health care reform. Sometimes I read the comments from shocked folks around here and I think that my lack of surprise must mean that I had some sort of future seeing powers during the last election. Either that, or nobody else was paying attention to BHO.

Bart -- What you are missing is the part about how Brilliant Obama understands what Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan failed to understand: that the world is very complex and demands nuance and slowness and glowering when shit don't go your way.

Obaviously you didn't read the entire NYT article or you would have seen that the Karzai's manic depressive diagnosis is mentioned in Woodward's book and comes from White House and intelligence community sources.

Seven Machos (quoting Obama) wrote:Mr. Obama's struggle with the decision comes through in a conversation with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who asked if his deadline to begin withdrawal in July 2011 was firm. :I have to say that," Mr. Obama replied. "I can’t let this be a war without end, and I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party."

But wait, don't these democrats know that he's escalating in the REAL war on terror, i.e. the ones that they pretended to support so that they can say Bush diverted from the real war on terror to fight his war of choice?It's almost like they weren't serious about their support. Ah well, General Betrayus is on the scene. He can fix anything. And besides, now that Obama is fighting the REAL war on terror all those democrats who were calling neocons who sent other peoples children off to fight wars of choice are now enlisting in droves, since they are obviously not letting other peoples children fight their wars. That might make them chickenhawks or something.

Sounds like Obama is fighting the war on the cheap. If he can't get it done in two years, that's it. Remember when he made fun of Mccain who said he would follow OBL to the gates of hell and Obama quiped "“John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won’t even go to the cave where he lives.”Apparently, neither will Obama. Because it will take too long. He's on a schedule don't you know.

Any effort in Afghanistan short of 700,000 new troops to occupy the mountain tops will fail. It's the terrain. The Taliban will slowly kill off all forces riding over the single valley roads, or climbing up from those roads, with endless supplies of advanced IEDs and snipers and ambush tactics. It is only by occupying those mountain tops that our forces can survive driving around in those valleys. That is such an easy decision to make that Obama must seriously want to see our forces slaughtered by Muslims.

Please be more precise by following the suggestion made by historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin, to the MSM which decreed its journalist style guide would refer to them as the "Brilliant Team of Rivals". :)

Althouse -- To respond to your addition, Brilliant Obama must then believe that he is going to lose the Democratic Party over Afghanistan, a la Johnson in Vietnam. That's ludicrous. That's fighting the last war when Bush was president and there was oxygen to protest wars. More meaningfully, there's no draft, so there's no large group of rich and middle class white dudes who do not wish to be compelled to fight. There will never be a serious anti-war movement in this country without a draft.

My favorite part of the article:During a daily intelligence briefing in May 2009, Mr. Blair warned the president that radicals with American and European passports were being trained in Pakistan to attack their homelands. Mr. Emanuel afterward chastised him, saying, “You’re just trying to put this on us so it’s not your fault.” Mr. Blair also skirmished with Mr. Brennan about a report on the failed airliner terrorist attack on Dec. 25. Mr. Obama later forced Mr. Blair out.Remember when the lefties were damning Bush because he got the special memo that said that Al Qaeda was determined to attack us? And the Bush administration should have heeded the warning and apparently monitor every single airport nonstop as there was a possibility that someone someday might use a plane from somewhere to attack a building or target to be named later. Yet here,Obama gets a direct warning from Blair about how radicals are getting passports and were being trained in Pakistan to attack their homelands and what does Rahm Emmanuel say "You're just trying to put this on us so it's not your fault". What a way to ignore potential threats.

At the time of 9/11 despite the caterwauling libs, the FBI had 70 investigations going looking for terrorist activity. Emmanuel can't be bothered though, he's too busy trying to avoid having any blame put on them.

AJ Lynch said, Irene . . . Please be more precise by following the suggestion made by historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin, to the MSM which decreed its journalist style guide would refer to them as the "Brilliant Team of Rivals".

Brilliant! Will do.

I would guess water bugs scatter easily? Meaning they are weak in the knees girly men?

We've got 12.6% unemployment here in California and Obama is worrying about losing the country. He's already lost the country. And it started when he decided wars without end were more important than all those unemployed blue collar folks from Pennsylvania and Ohio who cling in frustration to their religion and guns.

Fighting the last war and using refudiated methods to stimulate a recession and bringing the USSR's central planning playbook out of mothballs and always looking in the rear view mirror is not we expect from a leader.

Gene -- Don't forget forcing you at the point of a gun to buy health care as the solution to health care, and creating a law that sure as the sun will rise will limit consumer choice and cause health care shortages.

Lem wrote:Gen. David H. Petraeus.. told a senior aide that he disliked talking with David M. Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, because he was “a complete spin doctor.”Patreus nailed it.

He was being diplomatic. What he really meant was, he disliked talking with Axelrod the president's senior advisor because he doesn't like wasting his time talking to big mouthed douchebags that have no clue and who he'd much rather punch in the face.

That's why he'll make a good president someday. He has very good impulse control.

Gene:In all seriousness, I have wondered about this. Do you think there is tipping point in your state where the unemployed are so desperate that they collectively reach the decision to maybe riot or at least mass protests?

American forces, which make up the largest contingent of the NATO force in Afghanistan, have also suffered the largest share of deaths, with 172 killed this year, surpassing the previous high of 155 killed in 2008. A total of 802 American troops have died since the war began. -- New York Times, August 25, 2009

"These are predatory insects which rely on surface tension to walk on top of water. They live on the surface of ponds, slow streams, marshes, and other quiet waters. There they hunt for insects and other small invertebrates on top of or directly below surface using their strong forelegs which end with claws. They can move very quickly, up to 1.5 m/s."

1jpb -- The second link did work. It looks like casualties have shot up as we have put more and more troops on the ground, which is to be expected.

I have long argued in these very threads that it is foolish to put more soldiers in Afghanistan in some silly effort to "win" when there is nothing to win because there is no infrastructure in Afghanistan to take and no people to dominate (using any methods we would use). There is no there there.

A far superior strategy is to accept that we need a sizable yet minimal troop presence in Afghanistan that is mobile and professional. Rumsfeld did have Afghanistan right in other words, as wrong as he was about Iraq (where there is much infrastructure in place socially and materially).

I had lunch with an old friend today. His son just got stationed at Gitmo to treat returning US military forces. Car we keep that base there forever? I say evacuate it, leave the prisoners behind and blow it up. Then blame it on George Bush. Win-win for Obama cause he keeps his promise to close it.

"Do you think there is tipping point in your state where the unemployed are so desperate that they collectively reach the decision to maybe riot or at least mass protests?"

We might even get mad enough to not vote for Democrats 95% of the time. The California Dems own this state and should be held accountable for the total failure that has reduced paradise to a housing project with solar panels who's main industries are Rap and graffiti, with our main exports being weed and jobs .

I say the Democrats never particularly hated the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. They just hated Bush and those wars were his wars. If Democrats hate the wars so much, where the fuck are all the rallies and where is the coverage of the families torn apart, etc., etc.? Why -- if Democrats hate these wars so much -- are the wars on page A5 or so now instead of front page, above the fold?

Democrats would have torn themselves up over something else in order to try to make Bush unpopular had September 11 not happened.

Lynch: In all seriousness, I have wondered about this. Do you think there is tipping point in your state where the unemployed are so desperate that they collectively reach the decision to maybe riot or at least mass protests?

We've already had a bunch of small but violet protests this last week over the police killing of an Guatemalan illegal immigrant brandishing a knife. LA always has a big riot every 20 years over something. So even without the joblessness we're pretty much due.

Surprising thing though. Even with the joblessness, the stores are still jammed and the traffic unabated. I asked my wife, "If nobody has a job how come the traffic is so bad?"

What is victory, Professor Althouse? Don't recall you having defined it in this or any other posting. Without a definition, and without an estimate of the commitment it would take to achieve it, where do you gain the confidence to use the term damning?

The Washington Post reports:Obama, in the interview with Woodward, called a nuclear attack here "a potential game changer."

See? Nothing to worry about. A nuclear attack would be a POTENTIAL game changer. Yes, a nuclear attack just might possibly change things. Maybe. Potentially.

And if it happens, no big deal. Again the Post reports:During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, "We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

See, 9/11 wasn't a big deal. We absorbed it, didn't we? So any further attack would be no big deal.

One more try Seven ...The dead Americans are 529 thru 9 months of 2010, which comes out to 886 over 12 months. That is because we stopped hiding out and went hunting in old enemy held areas while the Taliban also went hunting cooperating civilians in old American held areas, hoping to take take credit for Obama's promised withdrawal 10 months from now.

My colleague in the State Dept is in a very sensitive job where he sees almost everything about Afghanistan and goes there frequently. He says the "Blame Karzai" meme is Holbrooke's attempt to wrest control over the US Policy toward that country---Karzai [rightly] distrusts Holbrooke, so Dick the dick spreads his usual brand of BS over the Afghani president. Or so my buddy believes.

Happily, both the Paki prez and the Indian PM despise Holbrooke, so Dick the dick is stymied---ero it's a bad war! His ego is humongous.

BTW, Obama isn't a leader, and when he fired the US general for ridiculing his Afghan policy, he was ridding himself of the truth-teller in the whole mix.

Bart DePalma said... Can anyone imagine Lincoln, either Roosevelt or Reagan having anything like these conversations?"

I think you ought to add that other Obama favorite to the list: JFK.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Clearly the President's political staff haven't done their polling and focus groups yet on this topic.

Mr President, I have news for you. If say NYC or SF (yeah, even those left coast places) was muked? Guess what, those gun clinging right wing folks, those Americans? We'd be wanting to see glas craters in some capital somewhere by sunrise.

PS: it will be a liberal coastal city that gets the first nuke on US soil. It won't be a weaponized high tech Iranian ICBM. It will come in on a Liberian flagged freighter in a container marked "machine tools" from some third world port.

PSS: Washington DC doesn't have a harbor. We do have lots of detectors on the interstates looking for gamma particles though.

The President is saying — can it be true? — that there isn't even a small fragment of the party that would support fighting the war with a serious commitment to victory. How damning!

That's a manipulative paraphrasing that leaves the wrong impression.

Almost all the Democrats, as well as any rational person, realize that the "victory" you speak of for Afghanistan doesn't exist. Or, if it does, it was accomplished back in 2001-2002. We conquered the country, toppling the Taliban government and replacing it with one of our own. The war was won.

Oh wait... You aren't talking about that war, are you? Are you talking about the ingurgency? 'Cuz you can't have a clear-cut victory in a guerrilla war; the most you can do is contain the guerrillas. Or are you talking about "victory" in the War on the Muslim World? In that case, I would paraphrase Obama as saying that no Democrat would support this turning into American-led Holy War.

This fantasy of "victory" is very useful for Machiavellian conservatives. Since it can never be achieved, the failure to achieve it can always be touted as a failure of those on the Left. Even during the Bush years, the Rightists maintained that failure in Afghanistan was due to unpatriotic, unsupportive Americans...

At least the Democrats speak the truth. Republicans have been lying about Afghanistan since 2001, and will continue to lie so long as they can squeeze some more perceived political advantage out of the issue.

I wonder just who has this "serious commitment to victory" in Afghanistan? Not the Bush administration to judge by its non-actions! Anyone who studies history knows this has not been done, so I can understand Obama's reluctance. I do hope Rand Paul does speak at Madison so he can pass along his father's wisdom when he said, " We can do better with peace than with wars."

Fen said... Didn't you hear? DHOTUS just claimed we can absorb another 9-11.

when people poop pooh the idea that Obama wants WMD, they forget that at one level 9-11 ws a dud.

The goal wasn't 3,000 dead, it was 100,000 dead. There were 50,000 workers in the 2 towers alone without counting the 5 other complex buildings (est 20-30k) or the 200,000 daily visitors (tourists and business folks)

Sort of scary when the Establishment would benefit tremendously by a big American city being nuked by terrorists. Folks like Fen would be able to say "told you so" and sleep better knowing that the World War III is on. Political opposition to the American Establishment would disappear. Our corrupt and incompetent leaders would be given unlimited power to deal with security. Since everything in America has already been made to concern "security", these folks would be able to do whatever they want.

How does one even define "victory" in a land we invaded for no stated reason other than--purportedly--to capture bin Laden and his cohorts, all of whom escaped handily. On their having vamoosed, shouldn't we have promptly packed up and left? What is our supposed purpose there, our goal, the thing that will happen that will allow us to say "we won, we can leave now"?

Hint: anything Washington or anyone else says about it is made up, provisional bullshit. There is no real purpose or goal in our being there...at least, nothing that can be stated publicly or that has anything in the least to do with our stated alleged goal.

This fantasy of "victory" is very useful for Machiavellian conservatives. Since it can never be achieved, the failure to achieve it can always be touted as a failure of those on the Left.

"Iraq."

Iraq is no "victory", except insofar as we just decided to declare it so. We destroyed a nation, have left it a ruin, with no real functioning central government; barely any infrastructure left; a land environmentally despoiled by our use of radioactive armaments, such that birth defects and still births have skyrocketed; millions forced from their homes, hundreds of thousands dead and wounded; and tens of thousands of our military personnel still stationed there, along with the many more "private contractors," (i.e., mercenaries) who will be there for an indefinite period.

If you call keeping a body alive with machines long after the brain is dead "victory," then, yes, we have "victory" in Iraq.

"Unfortunately for the future of western civilization that we value so much, Ahmadinejhad has absolutely no trouble making decisions. His first decision is to build a nuclear fission bomb and take over the rest of the Islamic world by killing all of those pesky Jews who are patiently awaiting their death if there is no decision out of Dithering Barack, any decision...please just make a decision."

Trad Guy...stop watching old James Bond movies on tv...you're starting to hallucinate!

Honestly Robert Cook, the US hasn't faced an existential threat, since 1776.

Do all threats have to "existential" to be dealt with, BTW?

I stand in awe of your ability to lie even in the face of the facts, BTW..."hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's dead' (really even in the obvious falsity of the Lancet 'study'), "radioactive armaments" (DU is LESS radioactive that active uranium, and active uranium can't do what people claim DU does), Iraq and infrastructure and environment...uh you seem to gloss over the PREVIOUS IRAQI management of Iraq...it NEVER had a modern infrastructure and Saddam et. al. weren't worried about the environment...Any way you Chutzpah is to be admired.

Obama during the campaign:I will send a clear message: We will not repeat the mistakes of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuaries in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.

Lots of other similar statements about the need for us to win there.

I wonder if Woodward documents the change in Obama's views? Or was Obama just pretending to be concerned about Afghanistan?

Yeah, he was lying then, wasn't he? It was all a fake hawk costume to convince moderates that he was tough on terror.

"Honestly Robert Cook, the US hasn't faced an existential threat, since 1776."

I take your point, but I think it can be said the Civil War was an existential threat to the USA that existed at that time, and, had the South won, we would not have the nation we have now--for good or ill.

If the Cuban Missle Crisis had gone another way, we might have had an actual nuclear exchange with Cuba...most certainly an existential threat to at least the eastern seaboard, and probably large swaths of the rest of the nation, if not the whole nation.

WWII is arguable, yes. One can assume Hitler would not have stopped if he had conquered all of Europe, and he might have set his sights on America. Perhaps not, or perhaps we would have worked out an understanding with him, as we have with so many other despicable tyrants. In either case, had Hitler prevailed in Europe, the world would be a very different plance than now and we would be a very different nation, so, if one wants to define "existential" as referring not merely to our destruction but also to a transformation of our nation or of the world in which we exist so profound as to render it substantially different than what is, WWII can be said to have posed an "existential threat" to us.

Of course, your point underlines mine: nearly 100% of the wars we've fought have been unnecessary and unjustifiable wars of choice, and have had nothing to do with actually defending our way of life.

Bobby Cookie tried hard: "We destroyed a nation, have left it a ruin, with no real functioning central government; barely any infrastructure left; a land environmentally despoiled by our use of radioactive armaments, such that birth defects and still births have skyrocketed; millions forced from their homes, hundreds of thousands dead and wounded;"

Yeah, and almost all that from our diplomatic efforts we called "sanctions".

Tell me again why presidents let Bob Woodward roam around the White House so he can write a tell-all book?

Vanity. The belief that this time, they are so right and holy that Mr Woodward -- who has won all these awards and therefore must be great and therefore be able to see the greatness here -- will agree with everything I do. Totally!

"We destroyed a nation, have left it a ruin, with no real functioning central government; barely any infrastructure left; a land environmentally despoiled by our use of radioactive armaments, such that birth defects and still births have skyrocketed; millions forced from their homes, hundreds of thousands dead and wounded;"

Setting aside the exagerrated and inflated numbers and prose, you'll note that there's not one single word of condemnation from Mr. Cook at Saddam Hussein.

Robert Cook...I appreciate your boldness in not calling the Afghan troop surge a sensible policy ... until we leave there anyway after our 2010 election cycle. But the "existential threat" to the 6,000,000+ Jews living peacefully in their Jewish State of Israel is growing as fast as Obama can tighten a noose around their necks. "Never again" must have acquired a new meaning that we will "never again resupply Israel", in today's Obamaspeak. The now nuclear Iran has announced its intentions many times: the removal of all boundaries to Islamic expansion by first liquidating Israel, and then eliminating the will of the USA to remain a Christian nation that resists allah.

Yeah, he was lying then, wasn't he? It was all a fake hawk costume to convince moderates that he was tough on terror.

Yes, he was lying then. This is the kind of speech he gave about 9/11 before he became a national figure:"We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores."

Saddam invades Kuwait, we (through the UN) impose sanctions (but not on food or medicine), and he uses those sanctions to further suppress his people by controlling the distribution of what he is allowed to buy.

"But the 'existential threat' to the 6,000,000+ Jews living peacefully in their Jewish State of Israel...."

Pure fantasy.

Israel has a very robust--undeclared and thus, by our standards, illegitimate--nuclear stockpile, and Iran has none--and we have no proof, despite fevered allegations, that they are building one. That could change in future, but for now such discussion is pure speculation.

If Iran built a bomb, and if Iran, who has not invaded any country in living memory, were to attack Israel, Iran would be handily and swiftly destroyed by Israel.

We're not the world's police force, and shouldn't be, but to take your metaphor:

If the police invade a criminal's home and kill him--without a warrant, without his having committed a crime within the police force's jurisdiction that justified his arrest, and without his having violently resisted that legitimate arrest--then yes, the police are guilty of criminal trespass and murder.

(The Crypto Jew)Sorry Robert, the Civil War wasn’t an “existential threat”…there was NO WAY, 11 Confederate states were going to defeat the 22 Yankee states, with twice the population, and probably 3 to 4 times the GNP of the South. Hitler, ~10% of the world’s war-making capacity was fighting the US (~45-50%) of the world’s war making capacity, and that discounts the British and Soviet capacities, meaning that Germany and Japan were out-produced about 4:1 in all categories of goods….again NO EXISTENTIAL THREAT. Cuban Missile Crisis….US total tactical dominance, in air/land/sea forces…total operational dominance, in terms of theatre nuclear weapons, and total strategic dominance…the USSR never mated their weapons to their delivery systems, and JFK KNEW THAT, whilst negotiating…the Cuban Crisis was a whole lot less a “crisis” than the fans of Camelot would like you to believe….had there been combat the Cubans and the USSR would have been handily defeated…No Existential Threat. The US hasn’t faced an existential threat since 1776. Again does that mean that the US Civil War, and WWII were pointless or illegal/immoral?

Really, I take no offense, there's no need to apologize. Your comment was reasonably mild and I just take it as your strong disagreement with me. I really have been called worse for less reason on this site. So, no problem.

Robert Cook...Was the Yom Kippur Day's simultaneous, two front surprise attack in October 1973 speculation? Tell that to the wounded Jewish POWs that Egyptians lined up and ran tanks over when they felt sure they had achieved a quick victory.

Sorry Robert, the Civil War wasn’t an “existential threat”…there was NO WAY, 11 Confederate states were going to defeat the 22 Yankee states, with twice the population, and probably 3 to 4 times the GNP of the South. Hitler, ~10% of the world’s war-making capacity was fighting the US (~45-50%) of the world’s war making capacity, and that discounts the British and Soviet capacities, meaning that Germany and Japan were out-produced about 4:1 in all categories of goods….again NO EXISTENTIAL THREAT. Cuban Missile Crisis….US total tactical dominance, in air/land/sea forces…total operational dominance, in terms of theatre nuclear weapons, and total strategic dominance…the USSR never mated their weapons to their delivery systems, and JFK KNEW THAT, whilst negotiating..

====================Little crypto-jew spouts nonsense. Cook of all people is actually more right than he is, as a mark of just how wrong Joe is.

1. Lincoln fought a war to preserve the Union. The North thought it was existential, so did the South. End of story.

2. The idea that Germany and Japan were not existential threats to the allied nations they conquered or were hanging on by fingernails at one point or another to avoid conquest (the UK, Soviets, Egypt, Burma...etc.) is ludicrous.

(War is not a function of manpower or the net war-fighting resources looked at in a balancing test that determines victory or defeat on who starts with "more stuff". The falsity of this was shown again and again in history. Alexander, Elisabethan England, US Revolutionary War, Vietnam inflicting a defeat on the resource-stuffed USA.)

3. Soviets did not make their MRBMs in Cuba operational. But they did have nuke SRBMs that covered all the Gulf States and many nuke-capable bombers operational...plus of course their main nuke forces that could try and get 200-300 thermonuclear weapons in the 500KT - 25MT range on US soil.Cuba was a serious confrontation that could have gone existiential the minute a hot war started and began spinning out of control. For that reason, Kennedy quietly gave up his MRBM fields in Italy and Turkey, took proposed ones in Iran off the table, and swore no invasion of Cuba. The Soviets gave up their MRBMs and permanently basing any land, naval, AF assets in Cuba..outside the stuff like what the US ringed Russia with - listing posts, landing facilities for recon, warship ports of call.

"Was the Yom Kippur Day's simultaneous, two front surprise attack in October 1973 speculation? Tell that to the wounded Jewish POWs that Egyptians lined up and ran tanks over when they felt sure they had achieved a quick victory."

Trad Guy...what does this have to do with today, and with allegations that Iran has a bomb or is building one or has the means to build one?

(The Crypto Jew)C4, “existential threat” means their existence was threatened…as the Confederacy never stood a chance, or Hitler, or for that matter Khrushchev there was NO EXISTENTIAL THREAT to the US…Had Hitler won he’d have represented no threat, to the EXISTENCE of the US. Sure Hitler and Tojo were a threat to Burma, or Thailand, of the Philippines, or even Great Britain, but not the US.

Robert Cook...Maybe we should issue are old nuclear arsenal, that Obama is cutting by two thirds anyway, among every nation and group of people to show our good faith. There is, after all, no proof that any one will use them any more than we will use them. But isn't that like drawing to a nothing in Texas Holdem Poker for all the marbles?

None of these entities have proof Iran is building a nuclear weapon or has the insfrastructure and programs in place to build one, or have claimed to have proof."

==============1. National security can never be reduced down to lawyer courtroom arguments. "Proof" as a causus belli - is an alien concept. Liberals persist in the idiocy that all foreign and military security policy can be quantified by perfect intelligence gained by perfect operatives and that intel sources can be protected while the "evidence is examined and argued in the open "courtroom style".

2. "Proof" is asinine. That is how the Zionists roll, maintaining that no nation has lawyerly "proof" that would "stand up in a court of law" that Israel has nuclear weapons.

3. Drill SGT is correct. Short of a nuke test or a picture of Ahmadinejad or Netanyahu hugging a pile of nuke warheads - you don't have your precious "proof to obtain a conviction". You have to go with other evidence - like enrichment, Pu recycling facilities. Missiles useless but for launching a nuke warhead. Radar and telemetry showing the Israelis, Pakis, S Africans (at one time), and now Iranians are practicing the warplane bombing runs only used for a gravity nuke bomb delivery.Uncovering Israeli spies in the US getting nuke bomb essential components. Or the AQ Khan, Iranian nuke strategic parts acquisition networks.

4. Arguing this like a lawyer is a waste of breath. The proper questions should be - (1)how can we disincentivize nations from building nukes now that the technology is well-known? (2)What nations besides Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey would start a nuke bomb program if Iran got it? Unless we and the Saudis force a nuke-free ME except perhaps a very small Zionist nuke deterrant that has to be joined to Zionists agreeing to permanent Borders and cash compensation of the Palis for what was stolen from them. (3) The US public has decided that another neocon war to invade Iran to preserve Our Special Friend's nuke monopoly is a war too far. What other options exist short of pre-emptive nuke war since the Zionists cannot bomb it conventionally in any meaningful way out of existence and the USAF could only delay it.

The police can only respond after a crime is committed. Until an assault, murder, rape or theft occurs the police can do almost nothing at all. (Note also, that this is the most *limited* understanding of how a police force is supposed to act, and the one which the US considers "right". In a Police State, which we understand as oppression, the police act pre-emptively.)

Citizens are allowed to directly defend themselves. A citizen does not have to be assaulted, raped, or murdered, just to have certain proof that that's what is intended before the citizen is allowed the right to defend herself with deadly force.

States are not like police forces.

States are like citizens.

Citizens and states can join together to form police forces, but neither of them can ever give up the natural right to self-defense.